westmarchsagafandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:GURPS Mass Combat Fantasy Campaign
Jeremy comments: My first reaction is "So the goal here is to convince the PCs to create a party consisting of one diabolical genius and four loyal generals (each themed according to one of the classical elements), seize power, forge the fascist Steel Empire of Baillis, and stomp around the world with an army of steampunk mecha." I don't have Mass Combat but it definitely sounds interesting. The idea of PCs IN GOVERNMENT terrifies me, but in a good way: :"I start casting Concussion." :"What are you doing? We are alone in a field." :"What's the range modifier from here to Vaderham?" :"Oh god no." :"What? It can't be that hard to hit a Duchy. Its got to have a HUGE size modifier." :"I am not involved in this anymore." Church rank above priest, below bishop In short, there isn't strictly one. A Prelate nullius dioceseos is is in charge of an area that isn't considered a diocese yet. However, he's considered equivalent to a Bishop in status. An Abbot is the equivalent of a bishop from the monastic branch of the church - he has feudal control over a monestary and its associated lands (considering that a monestary is a castle or fortress, filled with unattached men, and the lands usually include a town and substantial farmland, an Abbot in a medieval style game is actually a serious force to contend with. He's only not a military power in the Real World because his manpower is tied up with monastic vows - if they're more like fantasy religious folks, they all have armor squirreled away, all know how to use a mace and shield, and he basically has a garrison of soldiers with optional magical powers). Bruno 15:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Further on the church heirarchy Status 0 isn't a Priest, and status 1 probably isn't either. Various layfolk who fall under the protection of the church without being actual priests would populate these two levels of status. Monks aren't Priests, and aren't equivalent to priests, but fall firmly in the religious caste, not the civil one. I believe the clerical orders have similar folks as well, but honestly I know less about them. GURPS Banestorm probably has something on the subject, as would Middle Ages 1. I have both at home, I'll check them out after work. Status -1 and -2 exist in the church hierarchy by the by - the church has serfs and peons just like the secular lords do. Especially monasteries, but the church historically owned a LOT of land, and with rights to the land comes rights to the serfs who are bound to that land. Bruno 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :Well, Position isn't Status. It's Status, Wealth, and Rank, all tied together for simplicity of sorts. And I'm not really set on a strictly Christian church model, either. :So the question of whether you're a landless farmer growing food for a pseudo-Roman manorial lord, or a pseudo-Feudal Duke, or a pseudo-Christian Bishop, or a pseudo-Japanese samurai isn't really as interesting to me as the fact that you have no money and you have no rights. And that's what Position -3 represents: no money, no rights. As one goes up the hierarchy, people get different rights: a Position 3 Landed Knight has different powers than a Position 3 Underofficer of the Royal Guard, but they're roughly equivalent in terms of wealth, prestige, and abilities. :Or, alternately, if you're a monk or a priest is handled by whether you have Clerical Investment. An Abbot might be Position 3 to a village priest's Position 0, but the priest has Clerical Investment and can perform rituals, and the Abbot doesn't and can't. Assuming we're using a Christian model. Which we may not be. :I'm getting tired of plagarizing Greek or Norse gods. Chinese and Japanese gods are too weird. What are other good choices? : --Mlangsdorf 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :: Sumeria/Babylon/General Ancient Mesopotamia are under-plagiarized, in my opinion. Although they may be off the weird scale as well. :: Egypt is popular for plagiarization. Exotic, but familiarly so. :: Aztec mythology is well documented, but might be excessively maltheistic. :: Bruno 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) On Character Creation I think character concepts and creation for this kind of game are definitely the sort of thing the players should sit down together and figure out as a group - I'd hate to get stuck with four generals and no diplomats, or a group of characters with no fighting or leadership skills. We should also probably decide collectively 'who we want to back for the throne' and 'where we plan to go from there'. Obviously, conquering the world is a great goal, but we'll need to have some intermediate steps. The tentative 350-point total looks pretty good; I'll run a few character concepts through GCA and see what I come up with, though I second Pawel's suggestion from e-mail that we not necessarily enforce DF templates. --Harald387 11:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC) :I'm moving rapidly away from DF templates toward free-form builds. There will probably be some guidelines on the order of: 1 combat skill at 16+, at least 70 points in social/military advantages and skills (Position, Reputation, Strategy, Charisma, Diplomacy), some kind of niche protection. Toying with DF template concepts, I found there was too much emphasis on 2ndary skills that might not be relevant (Gesture, Climbing). :--Mlangsdorf 12:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ::It's worth noting that in small-squad leadership situations - stealthy night raids, that sort of thing - secondary skills like Gesture, Climbing, and Stealth become far more relevant. I get the impression that these are supposed to largely be 'lead from the front' types of PCs. --Harald387 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ::I'll see what I can work up on 350 points freeform, then - I imagine it'll be more than adequate. --Harald387 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) :::This was also my impression. :::I'm not sure we need full templates, per ce, but I think guidelines like Mark outlined above, a list of "zomg essential skills" like there exists in DF and as Kromm has discussed before on the forums, and perhaps even a requirement to put at least ONE point in each of the Essential skills (a little package, call it "Heroic" if you like) would be well served. :::I did get the impression that there would be battlefield encounters at the skirmish level - a basis of a DF template wouldn't necessarily serve you wrong, there.--Bruno 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Further suggestions: Add Public Speaking (Oratory), Propaganda, and/or Intelligence Analysis to the Great Captain advantage. --Harald387 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Where'd the conversation go? I swear, I left it here not an hour ago. I'd loose my head if it wasn't nailed on... Bruno 22:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC) :Silently moved to Talk:Racial_Magic so as not to clutter this space as much. Sorry for the confusion! :--Mlangsdorf 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Techniques as Perks vs Ritual Magic? ... Does this rule count for Ritual Magic as well? Or only nonmagical techniques? Can you buy the same perk multiple times to compensate for large penalties? :Yes, yes, no. Though I may an exception for Ritual Magic as it routinely has ludicrous penalties. :--Mark 00:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)